Sub-section (1) requires the Assessing Officer who has information suggesting escaped income to give the assessee a hearing before any notice under section 280 issues, by serving a show cause notice asking why the section 280 notice should not be issued. Sub-section (2) requires that show cause notice to be accompanied by the information itself, and lets the assessee reply within the period the notice specifies. Sub-section (3) then requires the Assessing Officer, on the material on record and taking the reply into account, to pass an order — with the prior approval of the specified authority — determining whether or not it is a fit case for a section 280 notice. Sub-section (4) removes the whole procedure where the Assessing Officer has received information under the scheme notified under section 260, directions of the Approving Panel under section 274(6), or a finding or direction in an order of any authority, Tribunal or court in appeal, reference or revision proceedings under this Act, or of a Court in proceedings under any other law.
Why it is there
Reassessment cannot start on the department's information alone: the assessee must first see that information and answer it, and a separate reasoned order approved by the specified authority must find the case fit. The exclusions in sub-section (4) recognise cases where the trigger has already been through another filter — a notified information scheme, the Approving Panel, or a court or Tribunal direction.
Who it applies to
The Assessing Officer who has information suggesting income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment
An assessee for the relevant tax year in whose case such information exists
The specified authority whose prior approval the fitness order requires
The Approving Panel, in the sub-section (4)(b) exclusion
The figures, and what each one turns on
Read the condition in the same row. A figure quoted without it is a wrong answer with a citation attached.
What
Figure
The condition on it
Where
Time for the assessee to reply to the show cause notice
Such period as specified in the notice
The section fixes no period of its own; it is whatever the show cause notice specifies
281(2)
What this means in practice
When a show cause notice under this section arrives, the information relied on must come with it — sub-section (2) makes that mandatory, so an unsupported notice is defective on the face of the section. Reply within the period the notice states; the section sets no minimum, so the notice governs. What follows is not the reassessment notice itself but an order under sub-section (3), passed with the specified authority's prior approval, deciding whether the case is fit for a section 280 notice. If your case falls in sub-section (4) — information under a section 260 scheme, an Approving Panel direction, or a court or Tribunal finding — none of this precedes the section 280 notice.
An example
Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.
An Assessing Officer holding information that income has escaped assessment for a tax year must, before any notice under section 280 goes out, serve a show cause notice which sub-section (2) requires to be accompanied by that very information, and must then pass an order under sub-section (3), with the prior approval of the specified authority, deciding whether it is a fit case. Going straight to the section 280 notice is not open to him. If the same escapement instead reaches him through a finding or direction contained in a court's order, sub-section (4)(c) removes the whole procedure and the section 280 notice may issue with no show cause at all. The assessee gets no statutory reply window either — sub-section (2) allows only such period as the show cause notice itself specifies.
Where you meet this section
You meet it as the show cause notice served before any reassessment notice under section 280, carrying with it the information relied on, and then as the order under sub-section (3) recording whether it is a fit case. That order is passed with the prior approval of the specified authority and is not itself the reassessment notice.
The words themselves
he shall, before issuing any notice under section 280 provide an opportunity of being heard to such assessee by serving upon him a notice to show cause as to why notice under section 280 should not be issued
Section 281(1), Income-tax Act, 2025.
What people get wrong
Expecting this procedure in every reassessment. Sub-section (4) excludes three whole categories, including any finding or direction in an appellate, reference or revision order, or in a Court order under another law.
Treating the sub-section (3) order as the reassessment notice. It only determines whether it is a fit case to issue the notice under section 280.
Assuming the show cause notice may withhold the underlying information. Sub-section (2) requires it to be accompanied by the information suggesting escapement.
Looking for a statutory reply window. There is none — the period is whatever the notice specifies.
What this replaced, and what changed
1961 provision
What changed in the move
s.148A
1. The exemption from the pre-notice procedure widens from one category to three. Under s.148A(4) the procedure was excluded only where the officer had received information under the s.135A scheme. Under s.281(4) it is excluded in that case and also where the officer has received directions from the Approving Panel under s.274(6), or any finding or direction contained in an order of any authority, Tribunal or court in appeal, reference or revision, or of a court in any other proceeding. So orders that formerly still required a show-cause step now bypass it. 2. The time limit for the show-cause notice moves from three years / five years (s.149(2)) to four years / six years (s.282(2)), a one-year extension, with the fifty-lakh threshold unchanged. 3. S.282(3) newly bars any show-cause notice within one year from the end of any tax year. 4. The Explanation to s.148A, which defined 'specified authority' by reference to s.151, is not carried into s.281; the 2025 Act deals with sanction separately in s.284.
How we established this. Read s.281 of the 2025 Act against s.148A of the 1961 Act. The marginal headings correspond exactly once the numbering is changed - 'Procedure before issuance of notice under section 148' becomes 'Procedure before issuance of notice under section 280'. Sub-sections (1) to (3) are the same three steps in the same words: the show-cause notice with the opportunity of being heard, the information to accompany it, the assessee's reply 'within such period, as may be specified in the notice', and the order 'on the basis of material available on record and taking into account the reply of the assessee ... With the prior approval of the specified authority determining whether or not it is a fit case to issue notice'. The only drafting difference in these three sub-sections is that the 1961 Act put the requirement that the show-cause notice be accompanied by the information at the end of sub-section (1), while the 2025 Act moves it to the opening of sub-section (2). Sub-section (4), which disapplies the procedure, appears in both.
Case law carried across
Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 281. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.
ITO v Tej Partap SinghSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.148A The High Court quashed my s.148 notice because the ward officer issued it instead of the faceless unit. Does that judgment still stand?
Union of India v Ashish AgarwalSupreme CourtHelps departmenttagged s.148A What happened to the thousands of s.148 notices issued under the old rules after the law changed in 2021?
Union of India v Rajeev BansalSupreme CourtCuts both waystagged s.148A Your notice was issued in the 1 April to 30 June 2021 window. Was it saved by tola, or is it dead?
Ankit Agarwal v PCCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A My 148A notice says I never filed a return, but I did. Is that enough to get it quashed?
Champa Impex P Ltd v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.148A The AO made no enquiry before issuing my 148A(b) notice. Does that kill the reopening?
Charu Chains & Jewels (P) Ltd v ACITHigh CourtCuts both waystagged s.148A The s.148A(b) notice refers to information the officer never showed you. Can you insist on seeing it?
Chotanagpur Diocesan Trust v Union of IndiaHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A My 148A(b) notice describes an enquiry but nothing was attached. Can I insist on the material?
Dr Mathew Cherian v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A I'm a consultant doctor at a hospital. Can the AO reopen and tax my fees as salary?
Hexaware Technologies Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A Your s.148 notice came from your own local officer, not from the faceless unit. Does that matter?
Meet Lalwani v ITOHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A I filed the death certificate and they still issued the 148 notice in my mother's name. Is it valid?
Parmesh Chand Yadav v ITOHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.148A The AO has issued a s.148A notice on crypto exchange data showing Rs 4.65 crore of transactions. I have given my bank statements and my return — is…
Rahul Sachan v ITOHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.148A The s.148A(d) order does not answer my objections at all. Is that enough on its own to get the reassessment notice quashed?
Sanjay Kumar Bijay Kumar v PCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A The same cash deposits were already reassessed and accepted at nil. Can they reopen them again?
Sapphire Foods India Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A(b) The officer has reopened my scrutiny assessment because the audit party disagreed with what he allowed. Is that a fresh look or a change of opinion?
Sevensea Vincom P Ltd v PCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A They reopened AY 2016-17 in 2022 for under Rs 50 lakh. Is the notice time-barred?
Siemens Financial Services Pvt Ltd v DCITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A Beyond three years, who has to approve the reopening — and what if the wrong officer signed?
Sonansh Creations P Ltd v ACITHigh CourtHelps taxpayertagged s.148A The officer says I took accommodation entries and I say I received nothing. Must he have material that the entries exist before he reopens?
Susai Amalanathan Antoni Vincent v ITOHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.148A Can I get a s.148A order set aside on the ground that the 'information' did not come through the Risk Management Strategy?
T.K.S. Builders P Ltd v ITOHigh CourtHelps departmenttagged s.148A Can the jurisdictional AO issue my s.148 notice, or must reassessment go through the faceless route?
Diach Chemicals and Pigments P Ltd v DCITITATHelps taxpayertagged s.148A The department says my purchases are bogus. Do the suppliers' returns and the input credit allowed on those invoices count for anything in the…
e-Verification Instruction 2(i) of 2024CBDTCuts both waystagged s.148A A compliance campaign message arrived and nothing was done about it. What does the department do next, and does an updated return filed late in the…
Change of opiniontagged s.148A The same papers were before the officer last time — can he reopen and take a different view now?
How crypto is taxed in Indiatagged s.148A How is crypto taxed in India — what rate, what TDS, what do I report, and what happens when the department writes to me?
What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.
